My favorite spring tradition

For one weekend at the end of April, I really let loose. I participate in an event that I look forward to all year. It involves drinking early in the afternoon. I go through emotional highs and lows, and after each time, I walk away knowing a little bit more about myself as a person.

I am speaking, of course, about the NFL draft.

For two days this weekend, officials from all 32 teams will gather in New York to select from this year's most talented crop of college players. Of course, the most attention will be paid to the top picks of the first round. A smart pick can trigger a dynasty, and, almost as importantly, guarantee a certain level of jersey sales for years to come. A bad pick is not only a disappointment, but also a serious financial burden, as rookie contracts for the top picks reach stratospheric heights every year.

With all that's on the line, teams try to make the best selections. So why is it that, year after year, especially when it comes to quarterbacks, they do such a poor job?

Ryan Leaf. Cade McNown. Akili Smith. In all of sports, few failures are as well-remembered as quarterback busts. They tend to stick in the minds of fans like Bill Buckner's error or Scott Norwood's "wide right."

Every year, teams go into the draft with the specter of the last few years' successes and failures in the background. This year's highly touted example will be Tom Brady, the former Michigan quarterback who has led the Patriots to three Super Bowl victories in the last four years. Brady, who was picked in the sixth round of the 2000 draft, is ESPN's way of enticing viewers to "go deep," i.e. watch every hour on both Saturday and Sunday. Its ad revenue aside, this misses the point: Why should we have to "go deep" to see the next Tom Brady get drafted? How did so many teams undervalue him?

Part of the answer can be found in what journalist Malcolm Gladwell calls "the quarterback problem" or the problem of "natural bias." He spoke about this topic at Penn in 2003, and more recently to ESPN's Page Two a few days before the 2004 Super Bowl. "It's about a particular cultural fascination with the idea of potential," Gladwell says. "NFL teams think that these [natural athletes] have more room to improve than anybody else." So they are valued more highly than someone who has compensated with hard work and intelligence.

The quarterback bias can easily be extended to other positions as well. Consider the meteoric rise of South Carolina wideout Troy Williamson on many draft boards this year. Williamson has never had a 1,000-yard season, yet his blistering 40-yard dash time at the scouting combine will make him a first-round pick. Scouts and coaches will look at his "natural" abilities and think, "All we have to do is teach him how to run routes and not drop passes." And they will, of course, pay him a lot of money.

This is ludicrous. Williamson could still become a very good NFL player, but taking him in the first round is a stretch. This doesn't mean you should look for slow players, but it does mean that speed, even for a wide receiver, is not all that matters. It's not even the most important metric (how many football movies feature a really fast wideout who can't catch?) If you take an example from last year, it was Michael Clayton of Tampa Bay, the fifth receiver taken, who led all rookies in yards and catches. His 40 time at the combine was viewed by scouts as his only real deficiency.

Another example of an undervalued player is Marc Bulger, a quarterback taken in the same round as Tom Brady by the New Orleans Saints, who later cut him. But even after putting up very good numbers for St. Louis in the last two years at the most important position in the game, Bulger isn't viewed as an incredible asset because he doesn't run very fast and he's not incredibly strong.

It's one thing for the fans to fall victim to "natural bias." For them, it's about entertainment. Watching a quarterback scramble 25 yards for a touchdown is exciting, even if he goes on to complete only a third of his passes for the game. But scouts are supposed to be smarter. So are serious football fans. And if you're a serious football fan, you know that there's nothing more boring than a calm, well-orchestrated Tom Brady drive.

At least, until you start counting Super Bowl rings.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.